Heidarnejad v. USCIS: Fifth-Circuit District Court Says a 25-Month I-130 Wait Is Still Within Normal Range
U.S. District Court, W.D. Texas (Austin Division) — Mar. 5 2024
1. Case significance
District Judge Robert Pitman’s dismissal in Heidarnejad illustrates how tough it is—inside the Fifth Circuit—to force U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) to accelerate an I-130 spousal petition. Relying on Li v. Jaddou (2023) and posted agency queues, the court held it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over both the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and mandamus claims, because no “unreasonable delay” existed when USCIS’s own California Service Center lists a 39.5-month average for similar petitions.
2. Factual backdrop
| Timeline | Event |
| Jan 28 2022 | Lawful-permanent-resident plaintiff Farid Heidarnejad files an I-130 for Iranian spouse Ayda Jafari. |
| Sep 11 2023 | Suit filed—19 months after submission. |
| Mar 5 2024 | At dismissal, petition pending 25 months; USCIS webpage shows 39.5 months to complete 80 % of comparable cases. |
Plaintiff alleged a DHS policy “disfavoring Muslim-majority countries” caused the holdup and claimed loss of consortium as a due-process injury.
3. Procedural posture & arguments
- USCIS motion: Rule 12(b)(1) (no jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6). Points:
- APA §706(1) requires a “specific, unequivocal command” to act within a set time—none exists for I-130s.
- Delay well inside published processing window; court therefore lacks a manageable standard.
- Plaintiff: APA §555(b) imposes a “reasonable-time” duty; 25 months is unreasonable, especially given alleged discriminatory policy.
4. Holdings
| Claim | Result | Rationale |
| APA unreasonable-delay (§706(1)) | Dismissed (12(b)(1)) | No statutory/regulatory deadline; 25 months < 39.5-month average → delay not “unreasonable.” |
| Mandamus | Dismissed (12(b)(1)) | Duplicative of APA; extraordinary remedy unavailable absent clear right/duty and no other remedy. |
| Fifth-Amendment due process | Dismissed (12(b)(6)) | Fifth-Circuit precedent (Bright v. Parra, 1990) + Muñoz (2024) foreclose liberty interest in spousal visa. |
All dismissals are without prejudice, but the court denied leave to amend as futile.
5. Practitioner takeaways
| Insight | Action Item |
| Processing-time baseline rules. Fifth-Circuit judges anchor “reasonableness” to USCIS’s own 80 % chart. | File only when client’s wait exceeds the posted window, or gather evidence the specific case is out of queue order. |
| No constitutional back door. After Muñoz, due-process claims tied to admission of a spouse/fiancé keep failing. | Focus on statutory arguments; abandon constitutional counts unless facts involve liberty interests other than entry. |
| Mandamus ≠ shortcut. Without an APA victory, mandamus will be deemed duplicative. | Plead mandamus only as alternative relief—and expect it to track the APA analysis. |
| Data-driven pleadings. Allegations of discriminatory policy need concrete facts plus comparator statistics; bare assertions won’t survive 12(b)(1). | FOIA requests and expert declarations on differential processing can bolster future complaints. |
| Venue choice matters. Compare to Ninth-Circuit cases (Mahmood v. Bitter, 2025) where a 19-month K-1 delay survived a motion to dismiss; Fifth-Circuit courts are stricter. |
6. Bottom line
Heidarnejad reinforces a clear Fifth-Circuit rule: unless an I-130 (or similar USCIS benefit) has lingered beyond the agency’s own published timeframe, APA and mandamus suits will be tossed at the jurisdictional gate—and constitutional claims won’t reopen the door.